Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers

  • Research Notes
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most studies of the organizational buying process assume that buyers acquire and use information “prosocially”—to make better decisions and promote their company’s welfare. The authors propose, however, that demands to account for their behavior causes organizational buyers to also gather and use information for political purposes—to protect their own self-interest. The authors present the results of an empirical study that investigates the extent to which four types of accountability—informal, official, process, and decision accountability—result in political (or symbolic) information search and prosocial information analysis by organizational buyers. Study findings suggest that buyers accountable to superiors and those accountable to subordinates or peers engage in more symbolic information search. Buyers accountable for their decision-making process analyze information more extensively. Surprisingly, buyers accountable for decision outcomes neither search for symbolic information nor analyze information more extensively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelberg, Sheldon and C. Daniel Batson. 1978. “Accountability and Helping: When Needs Exceed Resources.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36 (4): 343–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two Step Approach.”Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, Paul F. and Terry M. Chambers. 1985. “A Reward/Measurement Model of Organizational Buying Behavior.”Journal of Marketing 49 (Spring): 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, Robert H. 1992. “Effects of Justification and a Mechanical Aid on Judgment Performance.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52 (July): 292–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, Roy F. 1982. “A Self-Presentational View of Social Phenomena.”Psychological Bulletin 19:3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, Lee Roy and Terence R. Mitchell. 1978. “A Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies.”Academy of Management Review 3 (July): 439–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, Arthur P., Janet M. Dukerich, and Lucinda I. Doran. 1991. “Resolving Ethical Dilemmas in Management: Experimental Investigations of Values, Accountability, and Choice.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21 (5): 380–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, Arthur P. and Stephan J. Motowidlo. 1986. “Prosocial Organizational Behaviors.”Academy of Management Review 11 (4): 710–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, Michele D. 1987. “Taxonomy of Purchase Decision Approaches and Organizational Purchase Situations.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

  • ————— 1993. “Taxonomy of Buying Decision Approaches.”Journal of Marketing 57 (January): 38–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, David F. and Charles A. O’Reilly. 1982. “Responses to Failure: The Effects of Choice and Responsibility on Impression Management.”Academy of Management Journal 25 (March): 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe. 1960. “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology.”Journal of Consulting Psychology 24:349–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curley, Shawn P., J. Frank Yates, and Richard A. Abrams. 1986. “Psychological Sources of Ambiguity Avoidance.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 38 (2): 230–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fandt, Patricia M. 1990. “The Relationship of Accountability and Interdependent Behavior to Enhancing Team Consequences.”Group & Organization Studies 16 (3): 300–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fandt, Patricia M. and Gerald R. Ferris. 1990. “The Management of Information and Impressions: When Employees Behave Opportunistically.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45 (February): 140–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, Martha S. and James G. March. 1981. “Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol.”Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (June): 171–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, Gerald R., Gail S. Russ, and Patricia M. Fandt. 1989. “Politics in Organizations.” InImpression Management in the Organization, edited by Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld, 143–170. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson. 1988. “An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment.”Journal of Marketing Research 25 (2): 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, Michael and Philip Brickman. 1974. “Effects of Status and Knowledgeability of Audience on Self-Presentation.”Sociometry 37 (3): 440–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Donald W., Janet E. Keith, and Richard K. Burdick. 1987. “The Relative Importance of Various Promotional Elements in Different Industrial Purchase Situations.”Journal of Advertising 16 (4): 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimoski, Richard and Lawrence Inks. 1990. “Accountability Forces in Performance Appraisal.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45 (April): 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, Ann. 1989. “In Search of Rationality: The Purposes Behind the Use of Formal Analysis in Organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (December): 598–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, Daniel W., Terence R. Mitchell, and Lee Roy Beach. 1979. “The Contingency Model for the Selection of Decision Strategies: An Empirical Test of the Effects of Significance, Accountability, and Reversibility.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 24 (2): 228–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuiston, Daniel H. and Peter R. Dickson. 1991. “The Effect of Perceived Personal Consequences on Participation and Influence in Organizational Buying.”Journal of Business Research 23 (September): 159–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meltsner, Arnold J. 1976.Policy Analysts in the Bureaucracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, Rowland T. and Robert E. Spekman. 1984. “An Empirical Investigation of the Information Sources Used During the Industrial Buying Process.”Journal of Marketing Research 21 (May): 137–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, Charles A. 1983. “The Use of Information in Organizational Decision Making: A Model and Some Propositions.”Research in Organizational Behavior 5:103–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1981. “Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms.”Research in Organizational Behavior 3:1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puffer, Sheila M. 1987. “Prosocial Behavior, Noncompliant Behavior, and Work Performance Among Commission Salespeople.”Journal of Applied Psychology 72 (4): 615–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker, Barry R. 1980.Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherlock, Paul. 1991.Rethinking Business to Business Marketing. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw, Barry M. 1976. “Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action.”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16 (1): 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw, Barry M. and Frederick V. Fox. 1977. “Escalation: The Determinants of Commitment to a Course of Action.”Human Relations 30 (5): 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw, Barry M. and Jerry Ross. 1978. “Commitment to a Policy Decision: A Multitheoretical Perspective.”Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (1): 40–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock, Philip E. 1983. “Accountability and the Complexity of Thought.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (1): 74–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1985. “Accountability: The Neglected Social Context of Judgment and Choice.”Research in Organizational Behavior 7:297–332.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

She received her Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her research interests include industrial buying behavior, business-to-business relationships, and international marketing. She has published articles in theJournal of International Marketing and theJournal of Macromarketing, as well as various conference proceedings.

He received his Ph.D. from Northwestern University. His research interests are in the marketing strategy and public policy areas. His work has been published inJournal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Journal of Advertising Research, and several other journals.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doney, P.M., Armstrong, G.M. Effects of accountability on symbolic information search and information analysis by organizational buyers. JAMS 24, 57–65 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893937

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893937

Keywords

Navigation